6. No Superimposed Text.

7. No comics or anime.

8. No Begging for Upvotes.

No post titles soliciting karma (e.g. "upvote this", or "cakeday".)

9. No Links to Reddit.

This also includes screenshots of Reddit.

10. No gore. Porn is not WTF by default.

Gore is not allowed: All forms of gore, which includes depiction of serious physical injury involving blood, flesh, bone and internal organs. Please consider posting the more extreme stuff to /r/spacedicks (nsfw), /r/gore (nsfw) or another appropriate subreddit.

11. Your post/comment will likely be removed if it is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude

And may result in bans. (Please report them)

12. Novelty accounts and bots are not allowed.

They will be banned. (Please report them)

If you have any questions about the rules, if you're confused about why your post was removed, or if your idea for a post is acceptable; Please Read the 'Guide to WTF' & our Moderator Announcement before contacting us.

Shout Outs:

*The moderators of /r/WTF reserve the right to moderate posts and comments at their discretion, with regard to their perception of the suitability of said posts and comments for this subreddit. Thank you for your understanding.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about /r/WTF you can contact us by clicking the 'message the moderators' link, located on the lower right hand side of the page. However, before you do that please check and make sure that your questions or concerns haven't already been answered here.

Immediately to their left is a bike lane (half a car-lane's width). Cyclists are also supposed to go round clockwise, and 99% of them do.

Immediately to THEIR left is another small lane, for joggers/peds. I believe peds are supposed to go clockwise too. But in their case about 1/3 of them don't. The result is that the "jogger" lane doesn't stand a chance of being wide enough for all of them passing each other going in opposite directions, so the whole jogger/bike area is a free-for all of walkers, speed-walkers, runners, skaters and bikes. At that time of day a biker who wants to go biking speed is usually forced into the left-most car lane.

The area that this happened in is the worst (busiest) of the whole loop too.

I feel for that biker. I get pissed at the drivers who feel like they shouldn't have to deal with the bikes in THEIR LANE (one of their lanes). And then I get pissed at the clockwise joggers who force ME into the position of overflowing the buffer into the car lane.

Tensions are always high between cars and bikes in NYC. To me, this loc was an obvious flashpoint that I loathe having to deal with.

Frankly, I think they could maybe reduce the cars to one or zero lanes at that time, and/or start enforcing counter-clockwise jogging.

A confluence of assholes if there ever was one. Having said that the one in the 4000lb vehicle is always, always at fault no matter how fast or slow he was going.

The ethical thing to do is for both of them to stop and punch each other senseless (although your basic bicyclist is likely to be in better shape than your basic journalist, well, "journalist" in this case.

Full disclosure: I commute via bicycle and have on occasion had people in cars deliberately aim at me and, so far, swerve while maybe ten feet away, and I don't do anything to provoke cars, trust me.

People who do that must have tiny little penises if their manhood can be challenged by someone on a 25lb bicycle.

The cyclist is an asshole because of this: "Both men agree that the altercation started because Dooda was riding his bike in the left-hand lane at roughly 25 m.p.h., which caused a line of ten or so cars to back up behind him. Broderick's was the last car to get around him, which is when Dooda says Broderick tried to send him a message by abruptly cutting back over into the left lane in front of him, coming close to his tire. "He initiated the whole encounter by almost running into me," he says. "I'm sure he felt like I was antagonizing motorists because I was in the left lane riding a bicycle. But did I attack him? If he considers me pointing out that he is an aggressive and dangerous driver to be an attack, yes. Otherwise, no.""

The cyclist was hogging the left lane, and when someone cut him off he got pissed off and tried to "assert himself" by parking in front of the vehicle and yelling at the driver.

Yeah and if a car is hogging the left lane and blocking traffic I would cut him off too! Bikes have the same rights and they should expect to be treated the same. Furthermore, he had no right to stop in front of the SUV driver and block the road. If a car had done that everyone would be calling the driver of the car an asshole.

But cars pay virtually ALL the money and bikes pay virtually none, and the truth is that while cars (and large trucks in particular) cause more stress on the roadway, it would deteriorate in a remarkably fast period of time without them too. Roads have to be repaved regularly because of the weather more than because of the vehicles.

i do believe that most of the funding for highways comes from the federal government, which gets the money from our income tax. i was trying to find something more definitive but i did find this article..

Good points Faz. But as a cyclist, I see so many other cyclists in and around my home town not obey stop signs and riding in places they don't belong, it's no wonder they get into so many accidents. I don't condone aggressive auto driving, but don't play chicken with a 4000 lb. vehicle. No one wins. Just because you're wearing Spandex, it doesn't make you a superhero.

I watched a biker (with no helmet even) whip into an intersection taking a two lane left on the inside and fly across four lanes of traffic against a light without looking at all. In both cases cars had to take evasive maneuvers to avoid him. He also had headphones on. People were very polite in that nobody screamed or honked at him but the dude is going to get hit if he always rides around like that.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the New York DMV's stance of bicycles, and by all appearances, it looks like you're right - they're held to the same laws regarding right-of-way as motor vehicles are.

This means that presumably if the cyclist ran into the car after the car stopped, it would indeed technically be the cyclist's fault for not stopping soon enough (unless the car stopped suddenly unnecessarily, in which case it could be considered unsafe stopping). Likewise, if the car had clipped the bike's front tire with it's rear tire while passing, it would have again technically been the cyclist's fault for not slowing properly (clipping with the car's front tire would be a different story, though - then it's the car causing the collision, and if the lane change was fast enough, this again could be an unsafe lane change).

All of this of course is beside the fact that a cyclist is a lot more vulnerable on the road than a car driver, but I suppose that's all the more reason for a cyclist to be extra-careful.

As far as I can tell, up until the driver ran into the cyclist, it was really all a "he said/she said" scenario - no one can know absolutely for sure the speed of the other vehicle, and without a clear indication of speeding, neither did anything legally wrong, although if the cyclist was staying in place in front of the car for any great length of time, he was seriously bordering on obstructing the roadway.

However, while the actions up to that point make it hard to pin fault on any party (legally, at least), driving into the bike seems like pretty clear vehicular assault and battery, and might have even been attempted manslaughter. The cyclist would be wise to contact a lawyer, as he probably has a good case on his hands, and if there's any justice, the driver will be looking at jail time.

All of you guys missed the whole fuckin' point. Whether he is right or wrong traffic-wise, he dragged a cyclist on his hood for 200 meters. I am not a lawyer but this is at the very least reckless endangerment.

Apparently only in some areas. I think it depends on the distinction between murder and manslaughter - in some places, a charge of murder requires a degree of premeditation, the actual decision to kill someone (as opposed to doing it in the heat of the moment or delivering a potentially fatal attack without the intent to kill).

I doubt the driver actually intended to kill the cyclist, yet his actions very well could have. Attempted manslaughter sounded more appropriate to me than attempted murder, as the driver probably wasn't actually trying to kill him.

although if the cyclist was staying in place in front of the car for any great length of time, he was seriously bordering on obstructing the roadway.

The cyclist said he was doing 25mph which the article said is also the speed limit. Not surprising that that did cause a bit of a back-up, but he could hardly be ticketed for causing a back-up while following the law.

There are many people who very simply believe that bicycles should not be on the roads getting in the way of the cars that are "supposed" to use it. As a cyclist, you are going to get in the way of cars, slowing them down for a few seconds occasionally, no matter how careful you are, that's just the reality. And this is going to enrage a certain percentage of the drivers out there.

Of course, they're wrong. But they are also driving cars that can kill you.

There's something about driving a car that just angers people. I know I get far more pissed than necessary at minor things other drivers do when I'm driving. I'd never go so far as to try to hit anyone (especially a cyclist. My god.)

Y'know you might have something there. As someone who walks, bikes, drives and rides a small motorcycle (what can I say), I found that when I did my daily commute on the motorcycle, I was always in a much better mood at the end of my trip than I was by car. On the car, on the highway, I was always feeling impatient and cranky. On the bike or the motorcycle, I was enjoying the whole trip.

People also do weird shit around bikes. I was riding today and an old women went to overtake me. There was plenty of room, but she started driving on the wrong side of the road to get around me, leaving like 5m between us! And I do mean literally on the wrong side of the road. Meanwhile all the traffic going in the other direction is just blasting her with their horns, but she couldn't give a fuck.

Anywho... it's a shame you stopped riding, I feel like that's a 'win' for all the cyclist haters.

Except the cases where the slow down last for a "few seconds" are few & far between. In this case, there were 10 cars behind the cyclist - why didn't he move out of the way so they could pass him?

To put it another way: if you were driving a car with a flat tire/engine problem, and noticed that your slow speed was causing a line of cars to form behind you, would you pull to the side so they could pass?

sometimes it's a safety issue. if there are two lanes i will take up an entire lane because if you don't cars will fly by you getting very close to you. i'd rather piss some people off while maintaining my entire lane. it's a lot safer.

"It's a maximum speed limit. If he's slowed down by a truck, a tractor, a cyclist or a peel p50, too bad for him. He can pass them at the soonest safe opportunity.

Unless the road in question has a minimum speed limit, he should relax and stop being the kind of worthless asshole who justifies attempted homicide induced by minor inconvenience. (Though oddly, you did that as well, and you weren't even inconvenienced. You're just a worthless sack of shit, who was clearly spawned by a fucking horrible alcoholic mother.)
Thanks for reminding me that reddit is full of useless fucking children. Here's to hoping somebody runs you the fuck over, funnyboy."

Was that from you, TomorrowPlusX? Whoever it was, wow. You have some serious rage issues, and you sure read a lot more from that comment than I intended it to say.

I don't bicycle as my primary means of transportation any more for exactly this reason. While I liked it OK, I am too intimidated by aggressive drivers and not enamored enough with cycling to bear those risks. I now get my exercise in different ways that don't require me to share the road with assholes carrying a bad sense of entitlement (most drivers).

Not always, always at fault. Cyclists can do stupid things too. If you're the person who is smaller and less visible, the burden is on you to avoid the bigger things on the road.

That said the guy in the SUV was completely irresponsible. His little "I'll show you" gesture of originally cutting in front of the guy could have easily killed the guy if he had timed it poorly (which would be quite easy to do given the size of the vehicle he was doing it in.) While the cyclist tying up traffic was rude the behavior of the SUV driver was completely shameful and disproportionate to the situation.

Legally the bicycle has the right of way no matter what, and technically the burden isn't on the cyclist, it's on the car driver to yield right of way.

Also if there isn't room for a car and a bicycle the bike can legally block the cars for a short distance until passing is safe (if it's not safe again soon you're clearly on the wrong road. And 'safe' in this context doesn't mean the car can pass with 6 inches clearance, something that car drivers can sometimes forget.

Practically if you want to avoid dying you do have watch out for irrational or inattentive drivers. The other day I was crossing the road in a crosswalk, with the walk sign, and it was clear that the drivers turning left in front of me were looking down the road and not where they were going so I stopped: Sure enough, the first car didn't even see me, the second saw me at the last second and woke up with a jolt, and the third car actually did see me but I waved him past since he was the last hazard and I the way was clear.

Yeah I was speaking more practically than legally. I know the law favors the cyclist is just about every situation... but that's cold comfort, as you point out, when you've just got crushed to death by a car.

Internet: People feel like there will be no consequences to them because they are protected by the anonymity.

Cars: People feel like there will be no consequences to them because they are protected by over a ton of metal.

Of course, society actually supports assholes with cars, because obviously being behind the wheels of a 1 ton deadly machine means you have absolutely no responsibility toward the rest of the world, right?

If someone had shot multiple time near the feet of someone else while yelling "DANCE, FAGGOT, DANCE", the shooter would have been arrested immediately, right? Why is a driver allowed to do the equivalent with his 1 ton death machine and does not even get questioned by the police?

I don't care about my comment karma, but I'm mildly surprised that it would be a controversial statement to suggest that driving habits might be different in different places. I live in Japan, which is a pedestrian country, and biking is a lot less terrifying than it was in the States.

Fair. But what if a hippy cyclist wanted to plant daisies on a shooting range? He says he'll only use the lanes that people aren't shooting down right now. Of course if you hit him then it's your fault. Plus he's fast as hell and practically invisible. On top of that he's constantly complaining about the gunfire.

Personally, I was interested in his analogy. I've been more pro-car than pro-bike on this board, since I sit the fence (own a bike and no car, but am acutely aware of the inconvenience I cause motor traffic) and there is more pro-bike sentiment going around. Personally, I've been finding most of Canadian_Infidel's comments to be reasonable, though of course not flawless. For that reason, I feel a bit insulted (assuming I understand the intent of your comment) that you are dismissing what I thought was a reasonable counter-analogy to illustrate the problems that the OP's analogy marginalized.

If you can explain why this comment is amazingly foolish or outlandish, please do so!

Nothing prevents you from getting upset. You can get upset all you want. What you can't do is ram him with your car and risk his life, or take risky overtaking maneuvers on a narrow street. Wait for the road to be large enough to allow overtaking without reasonable risk, then do so.

wouldn't have this problem if they'd just close that road to motorists, like so many studies have shown would just make tons of sense. drivers in Central Park just blow through there with no regard. and what is the city's response? treating Critical Mass riders like terrorists. Fuck Bloomberg, he's not much better than Rudy the Weasel.

Again as with so many "cycling" threads we get lost in the "cyclists don't stop at stop signs" shitfest, losing the point that no matter what else is true in a situation like this IF THERE IS SOMEONE ON YOUR HOOD YOU MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DELAY.

There's no excuse whatsoever for not doing so, and Mr. Asshole Reporter should immediately lose his driver's license for failing to do so.

That really is the root issue in this debate. There is, under no circumstances (aside from a zombie apocalypse) any reason to drag a person with your vehicle. As soon as you hit ANYTHING, you should stop immediately.

As someone who's been bicycling and inline skating in Manhattan lately, this scares the crap out of me.

The fact that he's a faux "news" asshole is a humorous but unrelated part of the whole story to me.

I don't think it's a car issue per-se, I think there is just a general lack of respect for common man in today's day and age. That combined with the congestion of today's roads makes anywhere a bicycle/skates are legally allowed to operate a much more dangerous place.

People are inherently greedy, self-centered assholes. You can apply that to either side of this argument.

Just dropped into the thread to see whether Reddit thought that being a Fox News writer was more or less damning than driving an SUV. Based on comments so far it seems like SUV driving is worse? Interesting!

You know, a lot of us do obey the traffic rules. But we get targeted anyway because of the couriers and the douchbags who break the rules.

Let me describe something that happened to me yesterday, riding home from work. I stop at a red light. Like I'm supposed to do. I'm in the right lane, in a no-turn-on-red, like I'm supposed to do ( bikes stay on the right ). And a car pulls up behind me to turn right ( on red ) and honks and yells and honks and yells, until I roll over into the left lane and get out of his way.

As far as I can tell, car drivers explain that it's OK to harass and attempt to kill cyclists because some bad ones cause you to lose a few seconds on your commutes. A few bad cyclists justifies the ill treatment of us all. Awesome.

You guys should try riding a bike to work a few times. Then you'd shut the fuck up.

Let me describe something that happened to me yesterday, riding home from work. I stop at a red light. Like I'm supposed to do. I'm in the right lane, in a no-turn-on-red, like I'm supposed to do ( bikes stay on the right ). And a car pulls up behind me to turn right ( on red ) and honks and yells and honks and yells, until I roll over into the left lane and get out of his way.

This sounds like the result of obeying the rules in general. I've had this happen to me countless times while I was driving a car. Just the other day, I was yielding (as instructed) to a flow of oncoming traffic, when some huge ass truck starts honking like crazy behind me (there was no stop sign or light, but we did not have the right of way). I was just thinking to myself, "What does he want me to do? Get smushed so he can just drive over me into the sunset?"

It's a shitty experience indeed, but I think it might have less to do with being on a bike than you think. Personally, as a car driver, I appreciate you following the rules and urge you to please keep it up!

Yeah, but now imagine that for some reason basic human rules of decency are out the window, that you are on a 25 pound piece of metal versus a 4000 pound vehicle, and for some reason it is deemed okay to try and kill you.

I generally follow the rules of the road when I cycle but there is something about cagers that makes them crazy.

I'm sure there's a feedback loop of asshole bikers deliberately getting in the way of drivers who in turn bully the next biker they see, who's an asshole to every car on his way home, et cetera. It would be nice to stop it somehow.

For the record, I never bully bicyclists. Also, if I started and ended that with bikers, it's simply because they annoy the hell out of me and, at the moment, I choose not to see their point of view.

The solution will be to ticket cyclists who break traffic rules. Particularly couriers. They break the rules because it saves them a lot of time -- and they make money by being quick. Ticketing them will cost them money as well as time.

It will no longer be profitable for them to run lights, harass pedestrians, etc.

Hopefully, as a byproduct, general cycle commuters will clean up their act. Myself included -- I obey traffic law 99% of the time, but honestly, outside of rush hour ( say, 6am ) when no cars are coming and no pedestrians are crossing I do run lights.

Basically, there's no consequences to bad behavior, and that needs to change.

I have never seen a courier impede traffic, and I live in one of the largest cities in the US. I don't see why people are annoyed by them.

edit: sure they break the laws, like red lights, but that's not where the trouble starts it's when they follow the laws people git pissed. omg you're taking up the whole lane, despite the fact that you are a really f-ing amazing cyclist and can move just as fast as all of the traffic.

It isn't the taking up the lane while moving at the same speed. It's taking up the lane while moving at a speed 5 or 10 slower than the natural flow of cars on the road. And then passing cars that are stopped at red lights.

As for couriers, from what I've heard, a lot of them are insane douchebags who ride between the moving cars and parked cars and then violently slam doors or smash windows of people who get out of their cars without noticing that there's a lunatic doing 30 ten inches from the parked cars' doors. Except when they cut across lanes causing panic braking & swerving. Or hop on and off of occupied sidewalks to shave a few seconds off the delivery. And so on.

then violently slam doors or smash windows of people who get out of their cars without noticing that there's a lunatic doing 30 ten inches from the parked cars' doors

People opening their doors without looking is fucking dangerous, regardless of the speed of the cyclist. I've never been doored, but even though I ride a metre out from cars I've very nearly been doored at least half a dozen times. Last guy who did it followed me down to the next set of lights and tried to fight me, because I called him on not looking.

I don't think most people comprehend how dangerous it is, cyclists have been killed by open doors. It's fucking serious business.

violently slam doors or smash windows of people who get out of their cars without noticing that there's a lunatic doing 30 ten inches from the parked cars' doors.

MAYBE they should look in their mirror before opening their fucking door.

Its a real farce how they put bike lanes right next to parking spots in big cities these days, just to have cyclists constantly hitting people and car doors because people can't look in the fucking mirror.

As a recreational cyclist I honestly don't think it's based on the occasional asshole. I ride out in the country where most of these people never have to deal with couriers and commuters. I'd guess that 1 out of 10 or so cars passes me in what I'd call a dangerous way - within a foot, when there's oncoming traffic, etc. My favorite is when they pass me by driving into the oncoming lane with oncoming traffic on a blind curve. Happens every day. People are just too complacent and don't consider the consequences of what they're doing.

I concur, my father is trains for triathlons in the country and there are many angry farmers and douche bag commuters that are just as willing to try to knock you off the road. This is of course when there is NO ONE ELSE ON THE ROAD.

IIRC, this happened in a "bikes are vehicles on the road and only on the road" state, which means him going the speed limit in Central Park, while silly, is not only legally permissible, but actually pretty safe (bikes, while maneuverable, still have issues avoiding people at 25mph, let alone in a two ton four wheeled vehicle at 45 that stops on a dime in the endzone of two consecutive football fields).

So... I feel like someone who wants a balanced budget at a Republican Convention. Yes, I agree with what you say, but not with what you're doing.

See, I don't really get this attitude. It seems to be very common, but I think it sounds like a bad rationalization.

I think the problem is, the majority of times that bikers cause problems for drivers, they do it while being legal. Drivers feel silly complaining about things that are legal, so they decide they're upset that bikers don't obey basic traffic rules. Yes, I'm sure these complainants drive at or below the Maximum Speed Limit and never roll through stop signs...

It's silly to be upset that a biker does something illegal if that action doesn't cause you a delay; that's just fixating. And I know looking back you can probably imagine being inconveienced in a general way by this behavior, but I think if you pay attention, you'll find that bikers not stopping at stop signs or passing traffic at a stop light tend to do it in a way that doesn't get in the way of other cars-- they have motivation to be cautious and pay attention, especially while breaking the law, since if they do get in a car's way, they're likely to get hit and fined.

I think your last line makes it clear that you're not actually upset about things you observe, but things you imagine (even if it applies in some cases.) How many of these cyclists have you talked to so that you could fairly assess their attitude?

I second what you're saying. I think cyclist break the law about as much as drivers break the law.

I'm sure just like drivers are making running stop signs/red lights a big deal for cyclists, police making speeding as big a deal for drivers. i.e. "OH NO, IT"S THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!!"

I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the law, but sometimes you're right it is more convenient for both the driver and cyclist when cyclists break the law.

I dont commute on bike that much but a prime example of where it is better for both (IMO) is when cyclists break a red on lights that are made for mainly for pedestrians or there is little car traffic in the crossstreet. Just being stopped becomes a potential scary situation. If you stop on the curb side(the right side of the right lane) you risk getting run over from people turning right (particularly large cars) who think that the road is for cars only/ or most of the time simply people who simply don't want to wait for the light to turn green before the cylist leaves and then they can turn right.

Now if you have a situation where the car isn't turning right but going straight, now as soon as the light turns green it becomes into again a situation, as the cars haven't spread out yet and all are leaving the intersection at once. Since the driver has cars on his left side, he tries to squeeze by the rider, possibly sideswiping him. However if the biker broke the red and rode ahead a few metres, the cars leaving the intersection a few seconds behind would clearly see the biker ahead and go around him accordingly as the car's have spread out and the drivers can afford to 'pass' the rider properly.

Then there's the situation of if you choose to stop on your bike on the left side of the right lane so that people on the right can turn right. If then someone stops who wants to go straight, now you find yourselves stuck between two lanes of traffic, lane splitting.

Boston biker here. They may not be relevant where you live, but it is where I bike:

(From the MA General Laws)
Chapter 85: Section 11B. Bicycles
"Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian."

Bolded section can be interpreted to mean if it's safe to do so, cyclists can pass cars on their right.

If I do not ride no the right side of the right most lane, 99% of the time it is for safety reasons or as a courtesy to drivers; either I see that cars will be making right hand turns and, if I stay far to the right, I will be impeding traffic or I will need to be making a left hand turn and, if I stay far to the right, I will then need to cut across lanes to get the left, endangering myself and impeding traffic.

As someone else mentioned, doing this can sometimes put you in a tight spot; say if a car decides to continue straight rather than make the right hand turn, you're forced to ride in an uncomfortable spot until there's room to get back to the right most area.

Regarding stop signs and traffic lights, automobile laws don't really make sense. It is technically illegal in most areas, but it makes much more sense for cyclists to obey the "Idaho Stop" law (which is the law in Idaho,
Oregon and hopefully soon to be California) which has cyclists treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. There are always examples of the idiot shooting through intersections without even slowing down (as are there examples of idiot drivers rolling through stop signs or running red lights), but in most instances it is safer (as described by someone else - stopped cyclists are less visible, more likely to impede traffic, and less able to proactively avoid trouble) for cyclists to observe the Idaho Stop law rather than traffic laws designed for automobiles.

And don't get me started about some (definitely not all, I'd say the vast majority of drivers are super concerned about avoiding cyclists) driver's sense of entitlement! And please, SIGNAL YOUR INTENT!

TL;DR In Boston it's legal to pass on the right, Idaho Stop makes sense, most people at least try to be courteous, that 1% who are assholes give both drivers and cyclists a bad rep.

The whole basic traffic rules thing is sidestepping the issue, and does not account for the facts of the situation. Do pedestrians stop for lights or stop signs in the city? Hell no. Why? Because they are not dumbasses, and a quick glance to either side tells them pretty quick if it's safe to cross the street. A cyclist has the same field of view as a pedestrian, and therefore can see and react much faster than a car through an intersection. When you're in a car, you have six feet of steel from your eyes to the front of the hood, meaning your field of view is much narrower because you are looking at the intersection from further back, where as a cyclist can see 180 degrees and can easily tell if it's safe to cross with plenty of time to stop if it isn't. You can't do that in a car. Cyclists can also stop a lot faster at low speeds, as decelerating a ~200lb bike/rider combo takes a lot less time than decelerating a ~3800lb car/driver.

Also consider that many cyclists use clips to attach their shoes to the pedals. This means coming to a full stop requires unclipping the foot to use it for balance, and then re-clipping the foot (which does not always work the first time and can require looking down and fiddling) while simultaneously attempting to accelerate. Trying to do this at every stop sign would actually impede traffic much more than rolling through a stop sign if it is safe to do so. If a cyclists rolls through a stop sign without looking then he's just a dumbass, but if he's looked and it's safe, he's actually saving everybody time and increasing road safety by remaining aware of his surroundings instead of having to concentrate on his feet.

I'm not sure it is. The whole point is that cyclists say that it is their right to ride on the road with other motor vehicles. As such, they are also responsible for obeying basic traffic rules.

According to NYS law:

The motorist must always remember that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles

and

Most importantly, bicyclists must obey, and are also protected by, the rules of the road

You can't just throw around the parts that you like yet completely disregard the parts that you don't like.

As for pedestrians, I don't believe they are considered vehicles in any capacity, and they don't get to run down the middle of highways, so it makes sense that certain traffic laws would not apply to them.

In this city, according to the police of this city, cars cause twice as many of the accidents involving a car and a bike as bikes cause. So while cyclists break the law, what makes you think car drivers don’t - maybe the laws drivers break don’t get noticed so much: speeding, drink driving, phone driving etc. They have more effect though according to those stats.

The relevant extract of the database is a bit big to put in the text box (2077 rows for one table and 4123 rows for the other), but anyone can request the information from TransportSA, that’s how I got the information: Road crash database for serious crashes (injury or greater than $3000 [$1000 prior to 1 July 2003]) involving cyclists (I had data for crashes between 2000 and 2006).

The claims I made above are from my own querying of the database, so the only reference is the database itself - feel free to check.

Now , how many road laws did "Don Broderick" the nut behind the wheel break through out the duration of this "Road Rage !" incident ?

Quite a big long list indeed ! From failing to drive safely at all times , failing to report a road incident to failing to stop at the scene of a motor incident caused by himself and thus the list goes on ?

As a citizen that walks and rides and drives, I'm not stupid enough to argue with 4000lbs of motorized metal.

They're called accidents because if they happened on purpose it would be a felony. I never understood why someone would be ignorant enough to place their life at risk, depending on the judgment of other drivers, just to prove a point and ride on roads with motorized vehicles. How many times have we seen some stupid twit putting her makeup on whilst driving to work? Or some jerk driving with his head cocked at a 45 degree angle trying to talk with a co-worker on the mobile and driving through traffic?

I wouldn't place myself in such a situation where I could be killed by some stressed-out soccer mom in her SUV full of crotchfruit, but then again, maybe I'm brighter than the average cyclist.

i am an avid cyclist. i've been hit by cars more times than i can count. that driver is fucking insane and should be prosecuted. for what i'm not sure. i don't know the exact setting or context, but this biker, well, he is an idiot. from what i read of the story he was just asking for trouble. such idiocy will get him killed, and considering he's that stupid and wreckless, maybe it will be deserved.

any cyclist would agree: one should not knowingly provoke cars by impeding the road. yes, we should be allowed full use of most lanes, and luckily in my home town we are, but you are a fucking tard if you expect cars to yield to your insolence.

Can't be a surprise to anyone that all who work at Fox are total dickheads. Shameful story nonetheless. I hope he get's punished to the fullest extent. This amounts to attacking someone with a deadly weapon. Goodbye douchebag, ur going to jail!

I just want to say in front of the great interwebs that wearing a spandex doesn't make you a super hero. Please be careful, and don't forget that if you are living in a big city, you have a much bigger chance to encounter an assh0le.

Having lived in three of the top 10 most crowded cities in my life and being a two wheel rider (with and without engines) I recommend you to drop all your rights against a weapon holding (in this case the 4K lbs SUV) freak and just save your ass, continue living and call it a day.

I am a cyclist but there are things that I just won't do.. i.e. Ride directly in front of an SUV and tell the driver to slow down.

Pretty much all states treat cyclist the same as a motor vehicle. We are supposed to abide buy the same rules, although not too many on a bike adhere to them. And most copsare not going to give a cyclist a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign.

Now granted the guy in the car should not have done what he did (I am sure the cyclist learned his lesson) because he could have killed the guy. But the guy on the bike kind of had it coming. I probably would have wanted to do the same thing if a cyclist pulled that shit with me.